Is the juxtaposition of the Christmas holiday and the undoing of Amendment 3 in Utah merely coincidence? Probably. But I just can’t help myself. I have to point out the irony of it. The irony starts with the “reason for the season” (we’ll just ignore that he wasn’t actually born on December 25). Whether you believe in Jesus, prophets, or pagan gods, you’re probably familiar with the story and what he was about. To sum who he was and what he was all about:

He wasn’t well liked, and among the reasons for not being well liked was all the times he mingled with people he wasn’t supposed to mingle with. In short, he’s like the guy at the party who tries to create room at the table for everyone: you kind of admire him for the thought and hate him for making you share. Maybe he was like that because there wasn’t any room at any inn for him.

Like Jesus, some County Clerks in Utah made room for gay and lesbian couples when Amendment 3 was found to be unconstitutional.

The most distressing part of all the arguments against gay marriage, especially in red states like Utah, is no one is willing to let us enjoy family life, which is one of the most conservative things a person could want. But… those who have a monopoly on family don’t want to share.

Not to let the cat out of the bag, but we want to start a family at some point down the road. The most distressing part about it is the legal uncertainty we’ll face. Depending on where we live, both of us might not have legal custody. We might not have joint healthcare (and I can’t even fathom how much that will cost; healthcare is already expensive enough).

Anyway, back to the reason for this post. ’Tis the season to be merry and bright, so I’ll part with this thought: It’s the time of year when we all celebrate something meaningful (whether worshipping Jesus, gods, or celebrating the shortest day of the year and welcoming more and more sunlight) and spend time with our families. So let’s learn from this little girl and get back to focusing on what’s directly important to all of us.

And finally, let’s have pity on plights and open our doors wether that be opening courthouses for gay and lesbian couples, sharing legal protections for families of gay and lesbian households, or just opening the door.

Something else I’ve learned with all the hubbub around marriage equality: we’re all just looking for information that confirms what we already “know” (i.e., believe), and we rarely engage in discussion in a way that supports learning or discovery of new information. In other words, we’re all just trying to make a point, and we need the most believable stuff out there to win: statistics and an abstract from a research article.

I’ll illustrate by referring to the infamous Regnerus study. If you believe marriage should be between one man and one woman, you might grab onto the study and say something like “research shows that children raised by gay couples aren’t as well-adjusted as children raised by a mom and a day” without having first read the study.

Or you might rely on a summary of the research from a secondhand source like Fox News.

Or a friend.

In short, few of us do our own reading and thinking, and even fewer of us think critically about how people come to the conclusions they come to. We accept it on authority. And I’ll admit — I do it too. Jon Stewart is my go too source for accurate, factual information.

And this becomes problematic when it comes to important topics like marriage equality and human rights. It almost always becomes a game of he said she said. Or rather Jon Stewart said Bill O’Reilly said.

I’m not really sure how the discussion should happen. It seems like asking questions and having a dialogue should be enough, but that always comes across as challenging the source of authority. And this is problematic when the authority is God, a prophet of God, or Jon Stewart. You can’t challenge them. They’re smart, educated people.

Here’s another problem. It’s easy for me when people challenge Jon Stewart. He’s just a dude with a talk show. It’s probably not as easy for other people when God is challenged. He’s THE dude that knows it all. And when research doesn’t confirm (or deny) the message he trying to send through his messengers, it kinda plays with you.

That’s what I love about our country. It was set up so we won’t have to have these conversations. It was set up so you can go to church on Sunday and I can watch Jon Stewart four nights of the week. You can believe I’m going to hell for marrying a dude, and I can believe you’re wrong. I can believe I’m happy, and you can believe only straight families are happy. I’m okay with that.

So I’ll conclude with one point.

And state what I want (and it’s not an attack on your God or your religion) regardless of what research or religion says: equality.

Two court cases related to marriage equality were heard this week (Proposition 8 and DOMA) and left behind good and bad discussion: discussion that brought people together and discussion that further divided. At least that’s how it has been for me. I have family and friends in Utah where the majority of people are against marriage equality. And I have co-workers and friends here in Maryland where the majority of people are in favor of marriage equality (and if they’re not in favor of marriage equality they are at least willing to share in my happiness). This means my news feed on Facebook has been full of all different types of political discussion, which raised questions for me:

How do you respond to people you disagree with? Do you try to see their point of view? Do you try to get them to see your point of view? Do you try to convince them your point of view is good?

I’d like to believe good people can be convinced to do things by people in authority even when the things they do hurt others. So part of me thinks it’s worth a shot to convince them of my point of view. Something like, “Hey, when your leaders tell you to put money into campaigns like Yes on 8, Protect Marriage, or Preserve Marriage, (or to otherwise speak out against marriage equality) you’re sending the message to me that you think it’s fair Dan and I pay more in taxes (somewhere around $3000 per year) and health care than we would if one of us were female.” But that doesn’t really seem to help.

“The Milgram experiment on obedience to authority figures was a series of social psychology experiments conducted by Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram, which measured the willingness of study participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts that conflicted with their personal conscience.” Wikipedia

And then I stop and think, “Hey, maybe I’m being selfish. Maybe I need to stop and think about them and their point of view.” Well, I used to be one of them and so I did think like them. What ultimately changed my opinion on the topic of marriage equality was understanding that I could maintain my system of beliefs while others enjoyed legal benefits. This doesn’t seem to help as much as it should though. I can’t do the thinking for them. They’ve got to do the thinking, learning, and stretching outside of their comfort zone, which typically involves going against authority — and that just ain’t gonna happen.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not allow their buildings to be used for political events, does not use their pulpit for political messages, and never uses their member lists of politics. EVER. Unless it’s a moral issue…

And then I remember what happened when I tried to engage people in discussions about Proposition 8 back in 2008: lots of feuds, divisions, he said she saids, and “unfriending”. So maybe I shouldn’t speak up.

And then I remember what happens when people don’t speak up: absolutely nothing. I want something to happen. I don’t want to be held to the standards of others when it comes to the legal rights I should enjoy. I don’t want your religious beliefs to dictate what my employer’s insurance company charges me for health insurance nor how much my government taxes me (to name a few things). And I actually think it’s what you (those who disagree with marriage equality) want too: freedom from the religious beliefs and practices of others and government recognition of the marriage your [insert religious person here] performed.

“A right delayed is a right denied” Martin Luther King, Jr.

And that leads into something I find interesting. A lot of religious people have been saying the solution to the marriage equality problem is for government to step out of marriage. That would essentially place them in the same position I’m in: if the government doesn’t recognize a legal union or contract between two people then the union doesn’t exist, and this means no one can recognize your union (because it doesn’t exist). So… if y’all are really for government stepping out of marriage, I just want to make sure you’re okay with paying more in taxes and health insurance, or not having visitation rights at the hospital. This would look something like you going to the hospital to visit your wife and the hospital saying, “Oh, we don’t recognize [insert religion] marriages. You’ll need to provide legal documentation of your union.” And then you’ll walk away or present a legal document you paid a lawyer $3000 to $4000 to write up for you. Is that really what you want? Or let’s say you want to marry that latina girl you met while serving as a missionary and live in the U.S. You can’t do it if the government won’t recognize your religious union.

And just because it’s a cat that looks almost as handsome as Mishaand he’s in a bag and the bag is an HRC bag…

See the resemblance? Here’s Misha with his pride beads on.

So how do we have this conversation about the things that matter most to us in a way that’s productive?

Dakota Ary of Fort Worth, Texas is the newest poster child for the National Organization for Marriage.

So what happened? It’s hard to know. The story varies from reporter to reporter, but one thing should be pretty clear: the case is a little more complicated than the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) would like you to believe. It’s not just about a kid sharing his religious beliefs in class.

Marvin Vann, who is, according to dallasvoice.com, a member of a group called LGBTQ S.A.V.E.S. which was formed to protect LGBTQ students and teachers from anti-gay harassment, acknowledged that conservative media groups focused too much on Ary’s story and not enough on the teacher’s story, Fulbright Scholar Kristopher Franks. Here’s what Vann had to say:

“Concerned that only one side of the incident was being reported, we met Friday night with Mr. Franks. His account contradicts Ary and his lawyer’s version of events, and has been substantiated by several of the other students in class at the time. We found Mr. Franks’ explanation entirely credible.”

Considering this statement and other information from the Dallas Voice, the story starts to look very different. It shifts from an innocent Christian kid simply sharing his beliefs like he would in Sunday School to something akin to intimidation. And not just an isolated incident, but a series of incidents building and leading up to the incident NOM focused on in the video.

According to the Dallas Voice, the comment referred to in the NOM video was “the latest in an ongoing series of incidents in which Ary and a group of three of his friends have made anti-gay comments to and about [Franks].” Apparently, the photo in question had been posted by Franks for another class he teaches, Sociology. Students in that class had torn up the photo and then other students had replaced the photo with a hand drawn version. And then another group of students, probably the ones who tore it down, replaced it with a verse from the Bible, Leviticus to be exact. In case you’re not aware of what the Bible says about homosexuality, here’s a verse:

Leviticus 20:13 suggests the death penalty for homosexuality

What’s more, Franks, according to reports by the Dallas Voice, had been the subject of other anti-gay harassment and intimidation including hateful messages left in his classroom and vandalism to his car. Moreover, there appeared to be general problems at the school with teachers harassing and bullying other teachers and retaliation occurring against victims who spoke up. There’s no information on where Franks stands as far as bully of victim, but it helps to understand the backdrop and potential for tension at the school on an administrative level.

So take NOM’s video with a grain of salt: the incident is a little more complicated and nuanced than NOM would have you believe. It’s important to consider all the information out there before forming an opinion.

Finally, conservatives have a tendency to use cases like this to suggest that marriage equality brings with it an increase in cases like these. It’s important to point out that if marriage equality is to cause situations like this, gay marriage must already exist. According to Wikipedia, Texas does not recognize any form of same-sex unions.

Dark red: State constitution bans same-sex marriage and some or all other kinds of same-sex unions

What’s awesome is that in places like Maryland, people are getting at the facts. Same-sex marriage laws don’t change laws about school curriculum; laws about school curriculum change laws about school curriculum.

The letter also seems to strip gay couples of titles that would make them appear to be similar to straight couples. For example, notice the quotation marks in these sentences:

…Religious employers who provide special health benefits to married employees would be required by law to extend those benefits to same-sex “spouses”…

…So, for example, religious adoption services that place children exclusively with married couples would be required by law to place children with persons of the same sex who are civilly “married”…

Why do I care? They’re just words. Spouse. Marriage. They don’t mean much. Or do they? To me, this is reminiscent of the argument for separate but equal status: it segregates Dan and me from the rest of society–not only can we not get married, we aren’t allowed to refer to ourselves as being married. That’s something only straight, awesome people can do. When conversing with religious people, they sometimes deliberately avoid the use of words like marriage and spouse or husband and stammer for a word they feel is an appropriate middle ground (i.e., is separate but totally equal). It’s like when LDS Church president Gordon B. Hinckley referred to gays and lesbians as “so-called” gays and lesbians.

They’re just words, so I won’t be offended by them.

But other people seem to care about the words used to refer to them so maybe I should care. Remember when Robert Jefress called Mormonism a cult? And said Mormons aren’t Christian (i.e., don’t believe in Christ)? Facebook and Twitter were abuzz with Mormons repudiating his claims. Maybe Jefress was just stammering for words he feels are appropriate to separate his god-fearing religion from Mormonism. Here’s a refresher from Anderson Cooper.

Are “marriage” and “spouse” really just words? Linda Stay answered the question beautifully in this clip from 8: The Mormon Proposition. Her son married in California (before gay marriage was overturned), and she shared her thoughts about what that marriage did for her son’s relationship.

Words are powerful, especially the word marriage. Denying others the opportunity to use the word is also powerful and is not without its consequences.

Years ago I participated in an online discussion forum for members of the LDS Church who “struggle” with “same-sex” or “same-gender attraction”. A member of the discussion forum shared an epiphany with the group that went something like this (not an exact quote):

I finally understand. The reason God has asked his prophets [leaders of the LDS Church] to speak out against same-sex marriage is because if same-sex marriage is allowed then God’s children will have fewer families to be born into.

To set the stage a little, not all faithful members of the LDS Church agree with the movement to stop same-sex marriage from becoming legal, and this is particularly true among faithful members of the Church who identify as gay, lesbian, and same-sex or same-gender attracted. I was met with some hostility when I pointed out the epiphany wasn’t logical. I think I was accused of being apostate because I didn’t agree with the logic.

I understand the author was likely speaking of the possibility that if gay marriage becomes legal, then quite possibly some men (gay) and women (lesbian) who would otherwise pursue opposite-sex marriages might pursue same-sex marriages instead. But the argument isn’t really logical because whether or not same-sex marriage is legal, straight couples (at least the ones who can and choose to along with the few accidentals) will continue to have children. In other words, the number of existing straight relationships will probably not increase of decrease when already existing gay relationships are legally recognized. Maybe there’s something I’m not understanding, so please comment if you would like to add to the discussion.

While discussing this on Facebook, someone pointed out the same argument (quoted above). I really like the response a friend made to this argument (minus Katy Perry being spoken of in bad light):

[Kim Kardashian, Sinead O’Connor, and Katy Perry] each publicly married and then publicly divorced in really short time (72 days, 18ish days, and a year or something like that). Those people threaten and destroy the sanctity of marriage and the sanctity of families. I’m not sure how you and Dan’s committed relationship affect my relationship with my spouse or theoretical children or the sanctity of my marriage.

Why is this discussion relevant? Dan talked about this in a beautiful post about my family and how relationships are often challenged because of the teaching of principle of tough love. Perhaps “tough love” is destroying families more than my relationship to Dan is destroying families. An anonymous blogger shared his fear that as the Church continues to argue that gay relationships are destroying families, families with a gay member will continue to be destroyed. Perhaps lobbying against certain kinds of families is destroying families. Years ago I participated in a discussion with a family who lost a family member to suicide. The note the family member left suggested he committed suicide due to the Church’s participation in the political process and ensuing discussions that took place within the walls LDS chapels. They were brought to tears when they talked about what it was like when they learned the Church was advocating for Prop. 8 and encouraging members of the Church to get involved. They worried that more gay Mormons would commit suicide. They were also deeply conflicted: they support the leaders of the LDS Church as their spiritual leaders but they also lost a child because of the Church’s involvement.

This discussion is also relevant because Republican presidential candidates are making similar arguments. Freedom to Marry asserted that Perry, Romney, and Gingrich (respectively) “declared that committed couples wanting to marry are part of a war against religion”, adoption agencies would be shut down if they don’t adopt out to same-sex couples, and that it is not possible to comprehend gay families as families so “we want to make it possible to have those things that are most intimately human between friends”. Rick Santorum is the poster child for the Republican party claiming he will forcibly divorce gay married couples.

Maybe the real threats to religious freedom, family, and child birth are not gay couples, but the people fighting against gay couples. In other words, maybe fighting against my freedoms decreases your freedoms: you can still have babies and go to church while Dan and I go to school, pay our bills, and file our (separate-but-equal) tax returns.

Finally, this discussion is relevant because, let’s be honest, the arguments against same-sex marriage aren’t really about adoption rights, the first amendment, or even tradition, as Cary Crall posited in BYU’s Daily Universe (which, of course, was later pulled from the paper). Crall asked what it’s all about and asserted:

The real reason is that a man who most of us believe is a prophet of God told us to support the amendment. We must accept this explanation, along with all its consequences for good or ill on our own relationship with God and his children here on earth. Maybe then we will stop thoughtlessly spouting reasons that are offensive to gays and lesbians and indefensible to those not of our faith.

An argument for traditional biblical marriage?

If it is your belief that God doesn’t want same-sex marriage, come out of the closet and say so. I’m okay with that. You must also realize that even if that is your belief, we live in a pluralistic society; not everyone shares your beliefs and it is not okay to require that everyone uphold your beliefs. If same-sex marriage becomes legal, you can still have babies and go to church.